CRINmail: Day of General Discussion special edition

Child Rights Information Network logo
27 September 2016 subscribe | subscribe | submit information
  • CRINmail: Day of General Discussion special edition

    In this issue:

    Day of General Discussion 2016:
    - Children's exposure to environmental toxicants
    - Children and the effects of environmental degradation 

    Side event: The Unsound Management of Chemicals and the Rights of the Child

    Day of General Discussion 2016: Children's Rights and the Environment


    On Friday 23 September CRIN attended the Committee on the Rights of the Child's Day of General Discussion (DGD) on the topic of “Children's Rights and the Environment”. The DGD is organised once every two years to foster a deeper understanding of the content and implications of the Convention on the Rights of the Child as they relate to specific articles or topics.

    The participants present on the day took part in two working groups, with one focusing on 'Children's exposure to environmental toxicants' and the other on 'Children and the effects of environmental degradation'. Both panels included experts in children's rights, the environment, and several children who were invited to speak about their rights, activism and the state of the environment in their countries.

    During the lunch break the CRIN team also attended a side event on 'The Unsound Management of Chemicals and the Rights of the Child', hosted by the permanent mission of Uruguay and co-sponsored by CRIN and Terres Des Hommes.

    Back to top


    Working groups
     

    Children's exposure to environmental toxicants


    The first working group of the Day of General Discussion exchanged ideas on how exposure to environmental toxicants affected children’s rights, particularly focusing on a child’s right to survival, development, and to attain the highest available standard of health. Presentations were given by two child representatives, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Toxics Baskut Tuncak and a string of other experts on the effects of pollution and toxic waste on children’s health.

    States’ obligations to children

    Working group one opened with an address from Baskut Tuncak, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Toxics. Tuncak labelled pollution and toxics an “insidious threat to human rights”, noting that exposure to toxics has demonstrable effects on health including, but not limited to, the development of various cancers, serious respiratory illnesses and developmental disorders. Tuncak also presented findings from his latest report to the Human Rights Council, which focused on the impacts of toxics and  pollution on children’s rights, as well as the obligations of States and responsibilities of businesses in preventing the exposure of children to such substances.

    Dr Lilian Corra of International Society of Doctors for the Environment then spoke about the differences between adults and children when considering the effects of exposure to toxic substances, stating that children were not simply small adults. Children can be exposed to harmful chemicals virtually from conception, and the effects of these chemicals often have a more pronounced effect on their smaller bodies. These points were reinforced by Juliane Kippenberg, associate director of Human Rights Watch’s children's rights division, through examples of good and bad practice in banning the use of children in work that might be hazardous to their health.

    Problems and solutions

    Questions from the floor produced an array of different experiences and concerns about working on children’s rights and the environment. Participants ranged from the mother of an indigenous family living in Peru who raised  fears about oil pollution, to questions about fracking from the office of the Scottish Children and Young People's Commissioner.

    Corruption, a lack of effective redress mechanisms and a deficit of robust regulatory legislation were all brought up, with observations and advice being offered by several of the panelists. Participants noted that voluntary standards of regulation for businesses were too low in most cases, with the onus usually falling on victims to prove that they were harmed by toxic chemicals or pollution they were exposed to as a result of a company's activity, frequently many years after.

    This burden of proof was recognised as too often presenting an insurmountable challenge in the current climate, as very little concrete data exists on the range and nature of chemicals that children are already exposed to around the world. Difficulty in bringing cases against those causing environmental damage was also mentioned as a problem, as many NGOs found the associated costs prohibitive already, with fees and the cost of representation seeming to climb ever higher. One NGO representative from Kazakhstan added that speaking about or litigating environmental complaints was a no-go area in some central Asian countries due to the draconian response that such actions had previously drawn from governments in the region. 

    Data and modelling

    Nicholas Rees of UNICEF and mining consultant Daniel Limpitlaw both took a more technical approach to the discussion, demonstrating ways in which data on the environment could be used to identify or prevent violations of children’s rights linked to the environment. Rees showed how air pollution was linked to increased poverty and inequality, with the long term effects of exposure particularly harming children. Rees noted that despite huge increases in pollution observed via satellite, the number of stations monitoring pollution on the ground across the entire African continent remained woefully low. While concrete links between air pollution and harm to children could be drawn in Asia, such comparisons would be impossible in Africa due to a lack of reporting on the severity of air pollution.

    Limpitlaw came at the issue from a different perspective, explaining how modelling the environment and people’s interaction with it as an ‘ecosystem’ could flag up potential problems with development or mining projects near established communities. He suggested the idea of an ecosystem model revolved around anticipating what natural resources might be affected by a project and observing how they were used by the local population before construction or mining-related activities got underway.

    Child participants

    Two child participants also added their experience, detailing the effects of increased pollution and the presence of dangerous chemicals in their communities. Jena Ritu, a girl from India, said that dust, smoke, chemicals and fibres polluted the air in Delhi. Her home was surrounded and urbanised as the city expanded outwards, resulting in difficulties in navigating traffic on the way to school, breathing in harmful pollutants every day and an increase in the incidence of diseases such as asthma and tuberculosis among the region’s children. Ritu noted that nobody questioned children’s rights to education, health or survival, but explained that these were all being compromised by rapid and unchecked development.

    Caleb Mulenga, a boy from Kabwe, Zambia, explained that he had grown up near a mine and was constantly exposed to lead in water supplies and in the soil. Hailing from one of the most polluted towns in the world, Caleb explained that millions of other children lived in similarly dangerous environments, with the runoff from the mining industry affecting young people to this day. Caleb ended with a call to those present to include information on environmental rights in their reports to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, and to help raise awareness about environmental disasters like the contamination of Kabwe with heavy metals.

    Children and the effects of environmental degradation

    The second working group of the Day of General Discussion aimed to examine the impacts of climate change on children’s rights. The discussion also covered the effects of environmental degradation on children, questioning the relevance for children’s rights of access to and preservation of natural resources, ecosystems and biodiversity.

    One of the biggest threats to children’s health

    Joni Pegram from UNICEF UK reminded those present that States have an obligation to protect children’s rights in relation to climate change, but claimed that children’s rights were overlooked in national and international climate policies, with climate change frequently being omitted from child-related policies. This continues to happen despite the fact that children are disproportionately affected by the damage done by climate change, which the Committee on the Rights of the Child recognised as “one of the biggest threats to children’s health” in its 15th General Comment.

    The session also saw powerful statements from young climate activists, including a representative of plaintiffs in a constitutional climate change lawsuit against the State of Pennsylvania in the United States. She explained that their case sought to protect their constitutional rights to clean air, pure water, and other essential natural resources upon which their lives depended, but were currently threatened by climate change.

    Threats to natural resources, ecosystems and biodiversity affecting children’s rights

    The working group also looked at the importance of a healthy, balanced and sustainable environment for the protection of children’s human rights, as well as the role of children’s rights in addressing diverse effects of degrading environment. The panel included a young representative of the Mekong Youth Assembly who explained how development projects around the Mekong River in Southeast Asia had impacted the livelihoods of communities largely dependent on the ecosystem of the river. “Our river is crying,” he said, stressing that it was now extremely difficult to get any food from the river.

    A Colombian child representative explained the impact of large-scale coal mining on rural communities in Latin America, which affected access to natural resources and healthy environments across the continent. She told the working group about the loss of access to land, water, food and also highlighted the right of the child to cultural identity.

    Children as environmental activists

    Each of the panelists stressed that children needed to be included in discussions on the environment, as they agreed that threats to natural resources affected health, life, survival and development, play, leisure and the adequate standard of living of children. Participants called for child-friendly information to be made available for different age groups, adding that basic elements of a child rights-based approach to the protection of the environment needed to include a respect for children’s evolving capacities, environmental education and non-discrimination.

    Clarence Nelson, a member of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, noted that there were few mechanisms to support children’s meaningful participation and decision making in climate change dialogues or policies. The recommendations that followed included utilising children’s creativity and experience, and establishing platforms for peer sharing and learning among groups of children. States were advised to place children’s rights at the centre of national and international programmes and to ensure that children were fully involved in the policy dialogue on climate change.

    Redress and reporting on children's rights and the environment

    Looking at avenues of redress, the working group highlighted examples of effective remedies for violations of children’s rights related to ecosystems, biodiversity and natural resources. The group stressed that when harm had been caused, children might be able to access protection and redress through direct representation, class action and through complaints to the country’s Children’s Commissioner or Ombudsperson.

    NGOs and States were called to address climate change in their reports to the Committee, especially environmental NGOs, which currently do not engage with the reporting process of the Committee on the Rights of the Child. It was also recalled that the complaints procedure under the third Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child should be used to enable the Committee to build up a jurisprudence on climate change. Finally, the participants urged the Committee to adopt a general comment on the issue of climate change and children’s rights and to incorporate a stand-alone section on child rights and the environment in its concluding observations.


    Side event: The Unsound Management of Chemicals and the Rights of the Child

    Baskut Tuncak, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Toxics, opened the side event on the unsound management of chemicals by giving examples of dangerous chemicals in water supplies in the United States and of potentially deadly chemicals found in South Korean humidifiers. Tuncak claimed both represented the failure of the State to prevent exposure to toxic chemicals, with one representing a culture of discrimination against African Americans and the other the result of a lack of robust oversight of businesses. In both cases he noted that children’s rights to life, health and development were violated by States’ failures.

    Further examples were provided by Andrea Carmen, executive director of the International Indian Treaty Council (IITC), who spoke about the deadly effects of pesticides banned in the United States being approved for use in Mexico. The pesticides were approved for export only by the United States and accepted by Mexico, despite the potentially dangerous effects they would have on people living near fields in which they were sprayed. The IITC claimed there has been a surge in the number of children born with long-term liver damage and an increase in mouth cancers, apparently related to basket weavers using their teeth to snap reeds exposed to the chemicals.

    World Health Organisation representative, Marie-Noel Bruné, elaborated on the particular vulnerabilities of children’s bodies, stressing that children and adults reacted to exposure to toxic chemicals very differently. Bruné added that money spent on curing illnesses related to the environment could be hugely reduced if governments spent more on reducing environmental damage and limiting children’s exposure to harmful chemicals, as well as implementing better methods of recycling electronic waste. Dr. Stephan Böse-O’Reilly, representing the International Network on Children’s Health, Environment and Safety supported this idea, claiming that a reduction in exposure to harmful chemicals inevitably resulted in a reduction in disease in a population of children.

    Participants also noted that because of the potential expense of fighting legal battles against those affected, mine owners in particular had worked to reduce their responsibility by spreading shares in their companies between many stakeholders and had sometimes treated work with NGOs as a social responsibility tickbox exercise, rather than a real element of assessing their impact on communities. The Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Toxics noted that there was room for positive change via investors and financial service providers, as increasing awareness of the costs associated with careless use of dangerous chemicals could promote a more risk-averse culture in businesses that produce hazardous waste.

    Back to top

    Closing

    "Children in low-income, indigenous, minority or otherwise marginalized communities bear a disproportionate burden of our inaction on toxic chemicals, implicating the human rights principles of dignity, equality and non-discrimination. In my view, the only solution to this injustice is the prevention of exposure.

    "The obligation of States to prevent childhood exposure to toxics and pollution lies at the nexus of these rights and freedoms. There too lies a corresponding responsibility on businesses."

    -- Baskut Tuncak, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Toxics

     

    © Child Rights International Network 2018 ~ http://crin.org

    The CRINmail is an electronic mailing list of the Child Rights International Network (CRIN). CRIN does not accredit, validate or substantiate any information posted by members to the CRINmail. The validity and accuracy of any information is the responsibility of the originator. To subscribe, unsubscribe or view list archives, visit http://crin.org/crinmail.